|


Functions of a Complex VariableDate: 10/05/2002 at 11:28:34 From: Jay Subject: Functions of a complex variable Show that w=f(z*), where z*=x-iy and f is a differentiable function, is not an analytic function of z.
Date: 11/11/2002 at 11:43:14
From: Doctor Nitrogen
Subject: Re: Functions of a complex variable
Hi, Jay:
This gets pretty involved, so I hope you have time to read carefully.
The only proofs I could find somewhat related to my argument here can
be found on page 71, problem 2, and page 32, problem 5,in:
_Theory and Problems of Complex Variables_,
Murray Spiegel,
McGraw Hill, 1964, Schaum's Outlines, ISBN #07-060230-1.
Do you recall those delta(y)/delta(x) equations you had to use when
you first learned to calculate a derivative in calculus? That is, if
you recall, you had to compute a limit of something like
[f(x + delta(x)) - f(x)]/delta(x),
to find the derivative of something like
f(x) = x^2.
To prove that f(z*) fails to be analytic, you will have to do
something similar.
First of all, let
w = f(z*)
= ((u(x, y) + iv(x, y))*.
By the definition of derivative in Complex Variable Theory:
(d/dz*)f(z*)
= Limit [f((z + delta(z))*) - f(z*)]/(delta(z*)).
delta(z*)->0
First, consider what happens when delta(y) = 0, lim delta(x)-> 0:
When (delta(y) = 0),
Limit [f((z + delta(z))*) - f(z*)]/(delta(z*))
delta(x)->0
= Limit { [u(x + delta(x), y) - iv(x + delta(x), y)]
delta(x)->0
- [u(x, y) - iv(x, y)] } / delta(x)
= Limit { u(x + delta(x), y) - u(x, y)
delta(x)->0
- i[v(x + delta(x), y) + iv(x, y)] } /delta(x)
= Limit { u(x + delta(x), y) - u(x, y) } / delta(x)
delta(x)->0
- [i(v(x + delta(x), y) - iv(x, y)] / delta(x)
[A] = &u/&x - i&v/&x,
where "&this/&that" denotes "the partial derivative of this with
respect to that."
Now consider what happens when delta(x) = 0 and lim delta(y) -> 0:
When (delta(x) = 0),
Limit [f(z + delta(z))*) - f(z*)]/(-i delta(y))
delta(y)->0
= Limit { [u(x, y + delta(y)) - iv(x, y + delta(y))]
delta(y_->0
- [u(x, y) - iv(x, y)] } / (-i delta(y))
= Limit { [u(x, y + delta(y)) - u(x, y)]
delta(y)->0
- [iv(x, y + delta(y) + iv(x, y)]} / (-i delta(y))
= Limit { [u(x, y + delta(y)) - u(x, y)]
delta(y)
+ [iv(x, y + delta(y) - iv(x, y)] } / (i delta(y))
[B] = &u/&y + i&v/&y.
Now recall that for a complex valued function to be analytic, a
necessary and sufficient condition is for the Cauchy-Riemann equations
to be satisfied, that is:
[C] &u/&x + i&v/&x = &v/&y - i&u/&y,
or
&u/&x = &v/&y,
&u/&y = -&v/&x.
But compare what you must have for f(z*) to be analytic from [A] and
[B]:
[A] &u/&x - i&v/&x
[B] &u/&y + i&v/&y,
or it must be that
[D] &u/&x = &u/&y,
&v/&y = -&v/&x.
Clearly, [C] and [D] are not the same conditions, are they? But it is
known that [C], or the Cauchy-Riemann equations, must be satisfied,
so [C] is true, meaning the equations in [D] cannot be true, so f(z*)
can't be analytic.
You also might ask yourself, as another way to prove f(z*) fails to
be analytic, (I did not investigate this myself, but you might want
to) whether both
Re[f(z*)] and Im[f(z*)]
are harmonic functions, since every analytic function has two harmonic
functions associated with it, that is,
f(z) = u(x, y) + iv(x, y)
is an analytic function provided u(x, y) and v(x, y) are both
harmonic. If you can show Re[f(z*)] and Im[f(z*)] are not harmonic,
it would follow they are not analytic.
I hope this helped answer the questions you had concerning your
mathematics problem. You are welcome to return to The Math Forum and
Doctor Math whenever you have any math-related questions.
- Doctor Nitrogen, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
|
Search the Dr. Math Library: |
[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]


Ask Dr. MathTM
© 1994-2010 The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/